Trump’s first month in office: Fulfilling campaign promises and facing national and global oppositions

There’s no denying that Donald Trump is one unconventional leader. Unconventional to the point that he’s both decisive and impulsive, traits that could make or break a leader, needless to mention a country. He has already proven that he embodies both these two when he wasted no time in fulfilling at least a small fraction of his campaign promises by signing an executive order banning several Islamic countries from entering the US, which he did without batting an eyelid.

The result was earth-shattering. Just hours after the signing, two Iraqi green card holders were barred from crossing the US border. Several hours more, a handful of travelers from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen had to question the border offices why it was impossible for them to go home despite their valid documents.

The news spread like wildfire online. People—regardless of race—expressed their ire towards this rash move from the new leader. Government leaders, led by those from the banned countries, reacted as well. The hope of many refugee applicants was crumpled because part of the ban was the suspension of the refugee admissions scheme, which had already catered to at least over 12,000 Syrians last year.

America has been catapulted into the limelight like never before. First-world nations issued their respective statements criticizing the ban. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ordered his immigration minister to put up a special entry permit to accommodate those who have been affected by the new ruling from America.

The only good thing about it is that the executive order is that it is not as legally-binding as laws enacted by the Congress and the Senate. It is subject to a legal review, which means the federal court can still scrutinize, suspend, or invalidate it. This is what happened several days after the imposition of Trump’s first executive order.

In February, 2017, a nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) was granted in Washington State and Minnesota's challenge to President Trump's executive order banning Muslims and refugees. Judge James L. Robart wrote, "The court concludes that the circumstances brought before it today are such that it must intervene to fulfill its constitutional role in our tripart government." (State of Washington v. Trump, 2/3/17) On February 9, 2017, the Ninth Circuit denied the federal government's emergency motion for a stay, finding that it failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal and that failure to stay the TRO would cause irreparable injury.

But even the federal ruling is temporary. Many political experts opined that Trump can get away with it and eventually re-impose his executive order (which could possibly be improved and might include a few more “dangerous” nations). A non-partisan report circulated to the members of the Congress said that the order is constitutional, especially if the administration can prove that “the entry of any aliens or class of aliens would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States’,” a notion echoed by many Republican politicians.

The question now is where to draw the line. How will the government delineate “detrimental,” or what makes a green card holder a threat to the country’s interest?